On Tue, Jun 4, 2013 at 2:44 PM, Chip Childers <chip.child...@sungard.com> wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 05, 2013 at 12:09:21AM +0530, Rohit Yadav wrote:
>> On Wed, Jun 5, 2013 at 12:05 AM, Chip Childers 
>> <chip.child...@sungard.com>wrote:
>>
>> > The problem I'm seeing is that -SNAPSHOT is a newer version than -0, so
>> > 4.1.0-0 (the one I published from the release) isn't being downloaded.
>> > Instead 4.1.0-SNAPSHOT-3 is the one that's pulled.  Perhaps I'm just not
>> > configuring things right?  Knowing your schedule, if you don't mind
>> > taking a look and letting me know if perhaps I've done something wrong,
>> > that would be helpful.
>> >
>>
>> Yes, that's the expected behavior. To download the release version 4.1.0-0,
>> one should do: pip install cloudmonkey==4.1.0-0 (or suitable version now
>> and in future).
>>
>> In my view, one should get the latest and greatest (almost stable)
>> cloudmonkey and choose specific versions using == while installing.
>>
>> If you want to enforce that, please go ahead the delete it. We can in that
>> case ask users to get the latest from the git repo.
>>
>> Cheers.
>
> Yeah, but the SNAPSHOT version numbers represent incremental work
> towards the final release.  I'm cool with the SNAPs.  I'm just thinking
> that perhaps we need a scheme that allows the actual release version to
> be the "latest" if it is, in fact, the latest.
>
> Anyone else have thoughts on the numbering scheme?
>
> Unfortunately Pypi isn't the same as maven, in respecting the SNAPSHOT
> text in a certain way.
>

Yeah - this version number is one I alluded to earlier when we
discussed publishing on pypi.
The 4.1.0-snapshot releases are things that will never be part of
4.1.x at this point. So someone 'upgrading' at this point would
actually be a downgrade.

That said - we have a 'pay me now or pay me later' situation - so I'd
personally purge all of the -SNAPSHOT releases and only publish real
releases there. If folks want cloudmonkey to move faster we can have
independent releases (that someone will have to RM)

--David

Reply via email to